[Mageia-dev] Library policy query: What do we do when SONAME includes both major and minor? (Re: [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release kdelibs4-4.9.0-2.mga3)

Thu Aug 2 11:01:03 CEST 2012

Le jeudi 2 août 2012 09:28:28 Colin Guthrie a écrit :
+> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 01/08/12 23:09 did gyre and
+> 
+> gimble:
+> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote:
+> >> I have to agree here that something is "funny" in the libattica package
+> >> which ultimately helped to contribute to this issue.
+> >> 
+> >> e.g. on my system before update (tho' with similar results after):
+> >> 
+> >> [colin at jimmy ~]$ rpm -q --provides lib64attica0
+> >> libattica.so.0.3()(64bit)
+> >> lib64attica0 = 0.3.0-1.mga2
+> >> lib64attica0(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.mga2
+> >> [colin at jimmy ~]$ rpm -ql lib64attica0
+> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3
+> >> /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.3.0
+> >> 
+> >> So I can see how this mistake was made and TBH I could have made the
+> >> same mistake myself (with the caveat that I likely would not have bumped
+> >> the version of someone else's package with out confirming first and that
+> >> it should have been obvious from testing and installing the build)
+> >> 
+> >> But either way this seems like an issue to fix properly (possibly with
+> >> an upstream fix or some modification to the library policy when the
+> >> minor version is "presented" like this).
+> > 
+> > Good catch! Of course it's never the library policy that's wrong. The
+> > library major version is apparently 0.4 so the correct package name is
+> > 
+> >    lib64attica0.3  for the previous one
+> >    lib64attica0.4  for the current one
+> > 
+> > ... in the specfile:   %define attica_major 0.4
+> > 
+> > Can the maintainer of this package please fix this?
+> > 
+> > To find the version to use, look up the 'soname' of the library. I use:
+> >   readelf -a /usr/lib64/libattica.so.0.4|grep SONAME
+> > 
+> > =>
+> > ...                    Library soname: [libattica.so.0.4]
+> > 
+> > What follows ".so." is the major version of the library.
+> 
+> Is that really the correct definition of what a "major" version is?
+> 
+> I always thought the major was just the first number.
+> 
+> The library policy certainly doesn't mention "double digit majors" or
+> similar.
+> 
+> Is this something upstream is doing deliberately or is it just an oversight?
+https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdesupport/attica/repository/revisions/master/entry/CMakeLists.txt
+
+
+